As discussed here, women evolved to be leaders to their children, not to adults. Their mind and body evolved to take care of children, not deal with the problems of a society, or deal with wolves, neighboring tribes, or badly behaved adults. They expect men to pamper them, and protect them from dangerous situations. A lot of women cannot even deal with mice and rats. Women do not have the physical abilities or emotional characteristics to deal with predators and violent adults.

Women did not evolve to be explorers, either. Both men and women have a fear of the unknown, which causes us to feel safe when we follow the culture we grew up with, just like animals on a migration path, but women are much more frightened to try something different than men.

Mothers discourage their children from being adventurous, especially their daughters.

Women are more frightened of the unknown than men because, until recently, they were living in a very dangerous environment.

Women and children are much more vulnerable than men to wolves, neighboring tribes, and the dangers of uncharted forests, such as sharp rocks and thorns, fast-moving rivers, and eroding cliffs.

It is much more dangerous for women and children to be adventurous than a group of men. As a result, the women who were the most successful at raising children were those who remained on the paths that were familiar to them; who discouraged their children from being adventurous; and who let the men explore the world and deal with dangerous problems.

Women and children expect men to provide leadership, and to deal with the violent and badly behaved animals and humans. Women did not evolve the emotional or physical characteristics to be effective as police officers, soldiers, explorers, or the leaders of society.

Human history provides a lot of evidence for these claims. Specifically, women have been in positions of authority for centuries, such as queens, prime ministers, senators, and business executives, and many women have also been police officers, soldiers, and Secret Service agents.

If women were identical to men in their abilities, then there would be no difference between the behavior and policies of the Kings and the Queens, or the performance of male and female police officers, but history shows us that the women have fewer intelligent remarks, more trouble dealing with badly behaved people, and are less adventurous.

Some female leaders have been accused of behavior that is more bizarre than what the men are accused of. For example, Kamala Harris has been accused of forbidding low-level employees from looking at her in the eye and speaking to her. That type of leadership creates a miserable work environment because we have a natural desire to look at and speak to the people we work with.

If that accusation is true, Harris should be disqualified from influential positions, and if the accusation is false, the father and son who make it should be considered guilty of slander.

The women who are the most adventurous, and who are the most effective as leaders, are unusually masculine. They are not typical women. This is more evidence that women evolved to be mothers, and that a woman becomes effective as a leader and a police officer only when she is more similar to a man.

When both men and women take male hormones, they become physically stronger, and many people claim that male hormones also make them more aggressive, and cause them to lose their temper more easily. This is more proof that men evolved to be physically stronger than women, and to deal with violent people.

We refer to some hormones as "male" hormones, and others as "female" hormones because those hormones determine whether a fetus becomes male or female, and this applies to all animals. If we were unisex creatures, there would be no difference between male and female hormones.

Nobody has conducted an experiment in which a random group of young girls were given male hormones during their childhood to see what effect it has on their intellectual characteristics and personality, but that type of experiment would undoubtedly show us that the girls become more intelligent, adventurous, and aggressive, and have less of a desire to become mothers, and have less of an attraction to babies.

Prehistoric women spent most of the day with other women and children, while the men spent most of the day alone or with other men. Prehistoric men would have provided information to their sons about hunting and making tools, but most of the tribe's culture would have been passed from one generation to the next by the women.

The children  learned how to speak by spending every day with women, and they got almost all of their information about medical issues, food, clothing, and other culture from women. Even today we find mothers are providing more information to their young children than the fathers.

When I was a child, and my grandmother visited our family, she would often tell us a story when we were in bed and ready to go to sleep. She would not read from a book, however. She would either make up a story, or tell us about her life.

It is likely that prehistoric women also told stories to their children, but what type of story would a prehistoric woman have created?

I suspect that most of the nonsensical beliefs in our culture is the result of women creating stories for their children, and that the stories evolved through the centuries into astrology, tooth fairies, gods, heaven, magic, women's intuition, clairvoyance, palm reading, and fortune-telling.

Our mind produces thoughts by processing information, but prehistoric people did not have much information. Therefore, their theories about life were the result of their mind guessing at the missing information, and they would have filled in the details to please themselves, just as we do today.

Children have emotional cravings to be taking care of by their parents, and adult women have cravings to be taking care of by a man who is older than she is, and who is strong, talented, and important.

It is not likely to be a coincidence that the most popular religions promote the fantasy of an older, male god who behaves like a father or a husband who protects us from danger and gives us what we ask for. Many Christians even refer to their god as "father".

Men have a craving to become submissive to a strong, powerful, older male leader, but a "normal" man does not expect his leader to give him praise or gifts. A normal man expects to work for what he wants. Therefore, men would have been attracted to the concept of one or more gods, but they would have been less likely to believe that the gods would give them gifts and praise. They would be more attracted to the concept that the gods were strong and wise leaders who would help them deal with difficult problems.

Men also want to torment, intimidate, and hurt the people who misbehave, so men might be the main source of, and support for, the concept of hell and the devil.

My personal observations of people, and surveys of the public, show that women are more attracted to religion than men, and this was certainly true thousands of years ago. The reason is because women have a strong emotional craving to be taken care of and pampered by a strong and wise man.

Women have been promoting religion all throughout history, and I suspect that they were the primary source of the original religious fantasies. Even today we find modern women are the primary's supporters of idiotic fantasies, such as astrology, palm reading, women's intuition, clairvoyance, and the unisex fantasy.

The prehistoric children would have been emotionally attracted to the concept that they were protected by powerful gods, and that they can ask the gods for gifts. When the boys became adults, they would have continued to believe in those fantasies because they had no alternatives.

Religion is like a teddy bear, a pacifier, and a sex doll. Specifically, it is a "device" that we can use to make ourselves feel good. We can titillate ourselves with the fantasy that there is a powerful God watching over us and protecting us from harm. We can also titillate ourselves with the fantasy that we will go to heaven when we die.

The religious people are masturbating with fantasies of gods, angels, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, or whatever they have chosen to titillate themselves with. Since they use religion for entertainment, they do not care that there is no intelligent supporting evidence for it, or that their religious beliefs contradict other people's beliefs.

When men buy a sex doll, or when children choose a teddy bear, they pick the doll or teddy bear that is most emotionally appealing to them. Likewise, people choose the religious concepts that they are most attracted to, and ignore the others. They treat religion like a coloring book. They modify the religious concepts to be most emotionally appealing to them, which results in each person becoming even more strongly attracted to his beliefs, and having slightly different beliefs than other people.

Incidentally, it might not be a coincidence that a lot of men involved with the organized religions are homosexual. Perhaps homosexual men are more likely to have the feminine desire to be taken care and loved by a man. Perhaps lesbians, as a group, have less of an interest in religion than feminine women.

The prehistoric women did not cause trouble by promoting idiotic theories about gods, palm reading, or women's intuition. Actually, the fantasy that a powerful god was watching over them would have been beneficial when they encountered frightening problems, such as group of hungry wolves, or a shortage of food.

When people settled into cities, the mental characteristics of both men and women became increasingly inappropriate, and began causing a lot of problems. For example, some people formed organized religions that exploited the people for money and labor, instigated fights with other religions, tormented and killed witches, molested children, and inhibited the advancement of science.

The human mind needs to evolve to fit our technically advanced and large societies. For example, men are too arrogant, intolerant of criticism, and too afraid of the unknown, and women need to become more intelligent.

We cannot improve the genetic characteristics of those of us who are already alive, but we can impose restrictions on who reproduces in order to improve the future generations.

It was acceptable for prehistoric mothers to do whatever made their children giggle and smile, but modern women must prepare children for becoming an adult in a complex world.  It is no longer acceptable for women to treat children as toys to play with. Women must become leaders for children.

This requires putting restrictions on our freedom. For example, the information that mothers provide to children must meet high standards, just as if they were providing medicines to their children. Everybody is free to discuss issues, but nobody has the right to teach children to believe in astrology, fortune-telling, women's intuition, feminism, or religion.

The Schools Ministry has total control of the educational curriculum of children, and other ministries have total control of all other culture. Parents do not even have the freedom to produce clothing for themselves or their children. Parents must select clothing that the ministers have authorized.

Parents do not have the freedom to create recreational activities for children, either. They must choose from the activities, equipment, and facilities that the government has authorized for children. For example, mothers cannot arrange for smash birthday cake parties unless the government has authorized that activity.

Mothers must follow the culture that the government authorizes, and if they want to make changes to that culture, they must post a document in the Suggestions category to explain their idea, or they can discuss the issue with the Women's Division.

Women are so afraid of exploring the world that they behave like trains on a track.

Children adapt to whatever culture they are exposed to, but adults resist changing that culture. Therefore, it is important to ensure that children are provided with sensible culture.

However, women are more similar trains on a track than men because they have a stronger desire than men to follow the authorities, and a greater resistance to exploring the world and thinking for themselves.

Therefore, it is especially important that we ensure that the girls are provided with high quality culture.

We must also ensure that the people who get into influential positions are providing the girls with sensible guidance, rather than exploiting or deceiving them. For example, most business executives are exploiting girls and women for profit, such as by selling them fingernail and toenail polish, "women's" cigarettes (Marlboro cigarettes were originally designed for women), and absurd wedding fantasies.

If we allow girls to pick up idiotic culture, such as astrology, smoking cigarettes, and religion, they will become adult women who promote those idiotic customs, and who become hysterical when somebody tries to change their culture.

My mother is an example. She follows the authorities without any concern for why. Her idea of being adventurous is reducing the sugar in a recipe, and she is probably willing to do that only because other people do it.

Some of the cooking temperatures in the 20th century.

My mother followed the authorities who recommended cooking pork to a temperature of 185°F (85°C), poultry to 190°F (88°C), and lamb to 180°F (82°C).

Those temperatures caused the pork to become so hard and dry that we would put applesauce on it to make it tolerable, and we would put mint jelly on the lamb.

After moving away from home, I began experimenting with how I cook meat, and I eventually discovered that if the meat is fresh, it tastes wonderful when cooked at a lower temperature. I discovered that I like pork more than any other meat.

A couple of times when I was visiting my mother for dinner, she panicked when I tried to take the pork out of the oven when it reached 140°F (60°C). She would not tolerate that. Eventually I noticed a news article that said President Obama was eating pork at about 145°F (63°C), and that convinced her to let me remove the meat from the oven when it reached 150°F (66°C). She knew that the outside of the meat was hotter than the inside, so after removing the meat she wanted it to sit for about 5 minutes so that the inside would reach about 155°F (68°C).

My mother is typical of the women that I have known in my life. Specifically, women have a strong desire to follow whatever culture they picked up during their childhood,  and whatever the authorities are promoting. They do not have as much curiosity as men, or as much of a desire to think for themselves. Since they are less intelligent than men, when they decide to think, their decisions are more idiotic.

Prehistoric children could pick up everything they needed to know simply by observing adults, but today the children need an extensive education about a lot of complex issues in order to become a productive member of a modern society. However, we cannot expect the parents to figure out how to prepare children for life. We need scientists to analyze human behavior and culture, and to provide guidance to everybody about school curriculum, clothing styles, food recipes, holiday celebrations, economic systems, leisure activities, and other culture.

The only way to ensure that children are raised properly is to put restrictions on our freedom to create information and culture. Men cannot have the freedom to treat their wife or children in any manner they please, and women cannot have the freedom to treat their husband and children in any manner they please.

It was possible for men and women to do whatever they pleased in prehistoric times because their emotions had adapted for that environment. An obvious example is that prehistoric mothers could properly feed their children without knowing anything about nutrition or health.

Women are titillated by babies that smile, giggle, and laugh, and the our mouth and nose evolved to cause us to enjoy certain foods. Therefore, if the prehistoric mothers gave their baby an inappropriate food, the baby would cry, spit the food out, or push the food away.

The prehistoric mothers wanted to titillate themselves, so they would give the baby the foods that the baby enjoyed. Both the mother and the baby were trying to please themselves, and in the process, the mothers gave their babies appropriate food. However, those emotions are no longer appropriate.

Our modern technology allows us to produce a tremendous variety of foods, but a free enterprise system and a democracy provides a lot of worthless, dangerous, and unhealthy foods, such as lollipops, candy bars, and alcoholic beverages. It is no longer sensible for mothers to feed their children whatever the children enjoy.

Mothers today need an extensive education in nutrition and food, and they must have the ability to resist demands from their children for the candy bars. However, it is absurd to expect all of the mothers to have such an education, and to have the time and intelligence necessary to analyze and make sensible decisions about the wide variety of foods that the businesses are providing. It is also unrealistic to expect mothers to resist the desire to please their children.

To make the situation even more complex, no culture has any standards for information, and this allows businesses to provide deceptive information about their food products, and it allows citizens to claim to be experts on health and nutrition. The millions of health experts and businesses are providing a tremendous amount of contradictory information. It is absurd to expect people to make sensible decisions from what is essentially an "information trash dump".

Therefore, this Constitution authorizes the Meal Minister to design meals, and everybody must get their food from restaurants. It is no longer sensible to give people the freedom to feed their children whatever they please, or let the adults have the freedom to feed themselves.

The feeding of humans must become a scientific field, just like the feeding of animals at a farm. Our meals need to be designed by scientists, not by mothers who do whatever titillates their children, or by people who believe that they are experts on health, or by people who are trying to create the most tasty foods.

This concept of restricting our freedom in order to improve our lives applies to all aspects of culture, not just our meals. Our culture needs to be designed by scientists, not by businesses, children with ADHD, parents, or teenagers.

Therefore, the government has total control of culture, and the ministers must have the attitude and talent of scientists. The Courts Ministry has the authority to conduct information trials in order to ensure that we are provided with beneficial and accurate information, and the other ministers must ensure that all of our other culture is beneficial.

The public must follow the guidelines of the government officials, rather than create whatever culture they please. Nobody has the freedom to create recreational activities, religions, clothing styles, or food recipes. Anybody who wants to change our culture has to post a document in the Suggestions category to explain his idea.

The ministers will put tremendous restrictions on our freedom, which might seem to create a dystopian city, but it creates a society that is similar to that of a business, military, orchestra, or other organization. The members of a business or military do not have the freedom or the right to change the culture of their organization, or to provide the other members with whatever information they please. Instead, the members must follow the guidelines set by the management of the organization.

If a business has a cafeteria, the employees do not have the freedom to tell the cafeteria how to make meals. If they do not like the meals, then they must inform the management of their concerns.

This constitution treats people in a similar manner as the employees of a business, except that there are two very important differences:

1)		Ministers are accountable for what they do. The executives of a business can design the culture of their business in secrecy, and nobody can hold them accountable for what they do. For example, some female employees have complained that they are required to wear high-heeled shoes, which hurts their feet, but there is nothing anyone can do to stop the executives from enforcing that rule. The employees are allowed to complain about the clothing styles, cafeteria food, working conditions, and other aspects of the business, but the executives have the freedom to ignore the complaints. By comparison, the ministers are required to respond to the complaints in the Suggestions category. Although they have control of culture, they are employees of the city, not dictators.
2)		Ministers must meet high standards. A free enterprise system doesn't have any standards for business executives, investors, bankers, or anybody else involved with the economy. Nobody needs any particular education, and nobody has to meet any particular mental or physical standards. This allows people to become influential in the economy even if they are dishonest, violent, alcoholic, members of crime networks, religious, or suffering from mysterious mental disorders, such as Asperger's, ADHD, and bipolar problems. Tim Cook believes that homosexuality is one of God's greatest gifts, and that stupid belief is proof that he is incapable of providing us with intelligent analyses of life, and that he should be disqualified from influential positions. By comparison, the ministers must meet high standards in regards to the quality of their mind and education. They must show evidence that they understand the concepts of evolution, and they must have above-average control of their emotions. They must be zoologists who study humans, not religious fanatics or Freudian psychologists. They must be people who can make social science become a "real" science.

The type of people who have been getting into leadership positions during the past few thousand years have either been inheriting those positions, or getting them through murder, blackmail, intimidation, or other types of cheating.

This constitution promotes a significantly different type of leader. Specifically, a leader who encourages his competitors to develop their talents and become better competitors.

None of the people in leadership positions today, or throughout history, encourage their competitors, but it is an attitude that we can find among some athletes.

The athletes who are truly talented have no fear of competitors, and they do not want to arrange for athletic events in which they choose competitors that they know they can beat. They refuse to get involved with contests with ordinary people. They want to get involved with contests in which the other athletes are as good or better than they are because they enjoy the competition.

Although they want to win, they are more interested in competing. If they were only interested in collecting trophies, they could either purchase trophies for themselves, or they could get involved with contests that they could easily win.

Furthermore, they realize that they will sometimes lose a competition, and they react to a loss by trying to become better, rather than by hating, sabotaging, blackmailing, or murdering their competitors.

We should not consider a person to be worthy of leadership unless he has a similar attitude. We should restrict leadership to people who encourage their competitors to develop their talents. Our leaders should understand that they and everybody else benefits when we encourage everybody to become the most productive person they can be. We all suffer by suppressing people who are talented.

A person who gets into a leadership position by murdering his competitors will assume that he is benefiting from those murders, but if he could live a second life in which he does not murder his competitors, he would not get into a leadership position, but he would live in a world that had better leadership than what he could provide, and he would discover that he has a better life with those leaders than he does when he is the leader.

This concept is easily understood in regards to doctors. A person who becomes a doctor through murder, blackmail, or other types of cheating will assume that he benefits by becoming a doctor, but he will suffer from the stress of having to maintain his deception, and all of his patients will suffer from his inferior abilities. Furthermore, if he kills all of the doctors who are more talented than him, and if he needs medical help, then he will have to to be treated by a doctor who is even less talented than he is.

Anybody who is afraid of competitors, or who tries to suppress or ignore competitors, must be disqualified from leadership. Those type of people will give us the type of leaders that every nation is suffering from today.

A person should not qualify for a top leadership position unless he realizes that he and everybody else benefits when he encourages everybody to develop their talents and try to become a better leader than he is.

The social animals have only one type of leader; specifically, a male who achieves his leadership position by fighting with the other males and intimidating his opponents. We could describe those leaders as "bully leaders".

Modern humans have two other types of leaders, which gives us three types of leaders:

1)		Bully leaders These are the people who get into leadership positions in the same manner that animals compete for status. Specifically, by being aggressive, intimidating, arrogant, selfish, or violent. However, the fighting and intimidation can be subtle. For example: • When a group of children get together, the child with the most aggressive personality is likely to become their leader simply because humans have a natural tendency to follow an authority. • The people who try to change our opinions by giving us lectures, insulting us, protesting in the street, or posting videos and documents on the Internet with the attitude of an all-knowing authority, are behaving like animals that are competing for status. They are not discussing issues with us. This issue is confusing because there is no dividing line between a person who is discussing an issue with us, and a person who is trying to intimidate us. Some people appear to be discussing an issue with us when in reality they are only listening to what we say so that they criticize us. For example, a Christian might appear to be calmly discussing religion with a Muslim, or a vegan might appear to be calmly discussing foods with a non-vegan, but many of those people are listening to the other person only so that they can criticize or insult his opinions. Those people are fighting with their competitors like an animal, not discussing an issue as a human should do, but the fighting is sometimes so subtle that many people don't realize that they are wasting their time with a person who has no desire to discuss the issue. Those people could also be described as behaving like lawyers in a trial who are defending an opinion, rather than behaving like scientists who discuss an issue in order to understand it. We must pass judgment on when somebody is truly interested in discussing an issue with us, and when they are behaving like a bully who is trying to manipulate or intimidate us. For example, the people who try to impress us with their college diploma, years of experience, job title, material wealth, or famous friends are likely to be trying to intimidate us and make us feel inferior to them. They are analogous to a gorilla that is pounding his chest, and so are the people who boast that they are a Fact Checker, MythBuster, expert, learned scholar, authority, or Truth Seeker. Most of us, especially men, occasionally behave like a bully leader. We become a bully leader whenever we give somebody a lecture, or try to intimidate them with insults, facial expressions, or noises. The reason we behave like a bully leader is because we inherited a strong craving to get to the top of the hierarchy, and our natural method of competing for status is through intimidation and violence. Or craving for dominance causes us to give lectures about whatever subject that we believe we are the world's expert about, such as abortion, marijuana, Donald Trump, and crime. Fighting for status was beneficial for prehistoric people, but today we waste our time giving lectures and getting into arguments with one another. We need to select leaders in a more sensible manner. We need to ensure that our leaders are earning that position, rather than intimidating us into becoming submissive to them.
2)		Elected leaders These are people who have been chosen by a group of people to become a leader. Examples are the business executives who are chosen by investors; the manager of a factory who is chosen by the executives of the business; a government official who is chosen by voters; and teachers who are chosen by school officials. A family is a tiny organization, so when parents choose a babysitter, the babysitter could be described as an elected leader for the children. We can provide ourselves with leadership that is much more useful than when we let people fight for leadership, but only if the voters can make intelligent decisions about which candidate to elect.
3)		Admired leaders Some people become leaders simply because other people admire them. Examples are Hollywood celebrities, athletes, historical people, and fictional characters. The admired leaders do not necessarily want to be a leader, or have the ability to provide useful leadership. This is especially true of the fictional characters, such as Jesus, James Bond, and Captain Kirk. Almost everybody admires somebody, but we have a tendency to admire the people who are emotionally pleasing to us, and that is usually a person who cannot provide leadership. It is usually an entertainer, dead person, or fictional character. We have a tendency to dislike the people who criticize us, disagree with us, refuse to give us what we want, and put pressure on us to learn, work, and think, but those are the people who can provide the best leadership.

The executives of a business are authorities to their employees, but the free enterprise system puts businesses in the role of submissive servants to the public. This results in the business executives promoting the attitude that The Customer is King. The businesses pander to the public rather than provide them with leadership.

When a leader is an authority, he has the ability to ensure that his members are working together efficiently as a team, and he can encourage beneficial attitudes, dampen their arrogance, and resolve their disputes. By comparison, when a leader is submissive, he encourages arrogance, selfishness, and fights.

Democracies put the government officials into a submissive role, and that encourages the selfishness and arrogance of the public. Polls are frequently conducted in democracies to determine what the public wants, but polls encourage the public to believe that their opinions are intelligent and valuable, which encourages their arrogance rather than dampening it.

This constitution frequently criticizes the free enterprise systems and democracies for encouraging arrogance. There is a lot of emphasis on this issue because arrogance is very detrimental in our modern era.

It was necessary for prehistoric people to be arrogant because that helped them deal with the frightening and deadly environment that they had to live in. Their arrogance did not cause problems for them because they did not have any complex issues to argue about. Furthermore, when they worked together, their teams were small and simplistic, such as when some of the men got together to chase after a pig with sharp sticks. Their arrogance did not get in the way of such simplistic teamwork.

Today we live among a tremendous number of people with different opinions, and we form large teams that do complex work, and we must follow a lot of laws. We must compromise on complex issues that prehistoric people never had to deal with, such as crime, work environments, salaries, alcohol, gambling, and illegal immigrants.

When we encourage arrogance, we disrupt society by making it difficult for the people to resolve disputes and compromise on solutions. The more arrogant a group of people are, the more trouble they will have forming productive teams because they will regard each other as stupid or uneducated. They will lecture and insult one another rather than listen to one another, discuss issues, and compromise.

The more arrogant a group of people are, the more trouble they have working together as a team, so it becomes easier for crime networks to manipulate and control them. The easiest group of people to control are those that are fighting with each other.

The Jews have been encouraging arrogance and fights for centuries. The Jews encourage every person to believe that his religion, language, clothing styles, foods, and other culture is the best, and they encourage us to fight with each other over cultural differences, rather than discuss issues. For example:

•		They want Muslims and non-Muslims to fight over burqas, bikinis, and other clothing items, not investigate and discuss clothing in the same serious manner that scientists investigate the shells of hermit crabs.
•		They want the black and white Americans to fight about the issue of slavery rather than investigate and discuss the issue.
•		They want men and women to fight about feminism and sexism, rather than investigate the relationships between men and women, and discuss ways of improving them.

The Jews want us to be arrogant individuals who insult and avoid each other. They want us to behave like cats that are independent, rather than like wolves that work together in teams.

The more arrogant a person is, the less likely he is look critically at himself and the people that he admires, and the more likely he is to admire and trust the people who praise him. This reduces the chances that the person will realize that he is being lied to. Many salesmen have known about this concept for centuries, and they exploit it by giving us praise and pandering to us.

We have an expression for this trick; namely, "blowing smoke up someone's ass". (That expression refers to a medical procedure of Native Americans, but it creates an unpleasant visual image, so we ought to look for a replacement that provides a more pleasant image.)

The more arrogant a person is, the less likely he is to be critical of his beliefs and whoever he regards as his authorities. For example, when I told people that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed with explosives, I got the most resistance from the people I expected to be the most receptive; specifically, the people who were the most educated and intelligent. They had college degrees and above-average incomes, so they were convinced that they were super intelligent and super educated. They trusted the journalists, government officials, and college professors, and they ignored or insulted people like me.

I was amazed to discover that the people most willing to listen to me were the people without the college degrees or high incomes. As with all humans, they were arrogant, but they were less arrogant than the college graduates and wealthy people.

In a previous document I pointed out that the scientists, engineers, college teachers, and other supposedly intelligent people would be a beneficial force if they would work together as a team. It would be difficult for the world to become dominated by criminals, pedophiles, incompetent government officials, or selfish business executives if the millions of intelligent people were providing the world with guidance. So why is our world dominated by criminals and pedophiles instead of intelligent, honest, respectable people?

The main reason seems to be that their arrogance is preventing them from working together as a team and compromising on policies. This makes it easy for an organized group of pedophiles and Jews to manipulate them through intimidation, blackmail, murder, deception, and false flag operations.

Animals make decisions based on what they know, and they assume their decisions are correct. This arrogance was acceptable for prehistoric people because they did not have to deal with complex problems. Today, however, it interferes with our life by causing us to assume that we can easily figure out every problem we encounter.

For example, most people believe that they know that the universe was created by a god or a Big Bang, and many people believe that they have figured out the correct policy for abortion, marijuana, gambling, and crime. In reality, the universe is too complex for us to completely understand. The more we learn about something, the more we realize that it is more complicated than we assume.

For example, why did the Black Death kill so many people during the Middle Ages? Decades ago the assumption was that people were dying because they were getting bit by infected fleas, but it is turning out to be more complicated than that.

The Chronicle (of the Little Dot Studios Network) produces documentaries about medieval history, and this one explains that scientists have recently discovered that some of the descendants of people who survived the Black death during the 1600s have a particular gene that gives them a resistance to that virus, and to the HIV virus also.

Scientists have also recently discovered that lice might have been spreading the disease.

Those recent discoveries show that the Black Death was more complicated than our ancestors assumed, and future generations will undoubtedly discover that it is even more complex than we assume because there is more than one gene that determines whether a person dies when exposed to pathogens, and there is more than one gene that determines how attractive a person is to fleas, lice, ticks, mosquitoes, and other creatures that carry diseases.

For example, when I go into the backyard at my mother's home during certain times of the year to pick oranges or other fruit, I get bit by at least a dozen fleas. My mother never seems to get bit, however. My mother doesn't get canker sores, either, but I get them quite often.

When I was a child, I used to get cold sores. My mother never got them, but my father did.

If the Black Death was caused by fleas and lice, then the people who were the least attractive to fleas and lice had a greater chance of surviving, and  so did the people who were more successful at keeping rats and other animals away from their home.

We should never assume that we have answered a question about the universe. Almost everything turns out to be more complex than we assumed.

We must suppress our arrogance and realize that we are like blind men feeling an elephant. We are lucky if we can discover a few small details about the universe.

Prehistoric people could intimidate and influence only the few people within their visual and auditory range. Today, however, we can use television, cell phones, and the Internet to intimidate people around the world, and the future generations.

Our modern technology has allowed millions of people to clutter the Internet with insulting and arrogant comments, documents, and videos that tell "The Truth" about almost every issue. Since there are no standards for information, none of us have to be concerned about the accuracy of our information, and we do not have to care if we contradict other "experts".

To make the situation more absurd, many people respond to the arrogant documents with insulting comments, documents, or videos.

The people who post the arrogant material, and the people who respond with insults, are behaving like apes that are fighting for status. They are not behaving like scientists who discuss issues with one another. They are wasting their time and cluttering the Internet with insults and contradictory information.

By comparison, the documents that scientists create are discussing issues in a serious manner, and when a scientist responds to one of those documents, he puts effort into providing an intelligent response.

In order to improve the Internet, we need to set higher standards for the information that is put onto it, and the responses to that information. This is one of the reasons that the Courts Ministry has the authority to conduct information trials.

This Constitution promotes the opposite attitude of all other cultures. Specifically, instead of promoting the theory that everybody is intelligent enough to make wise decisions about voting, raising children, abortion, and other issues, this constitution promotes the attitude that the majority of people will always have "average" mental characteristics, and half the population will always be below-average. Therefore, most people will never have anything intelligent to contribute about any issue. Most people should be provided with guidance, rather than encouraged to believe that they are geniuses.

Furthermore, the people who have above-average intellectual abilities will rarely have something intelligent to say because developing new knowledge requires a lot of time and hard work, so even the most talented person will only be able to add a small amount of knowledge. Therefore, even the most intelligent person will benefit by listening to other people's opinions and criticism.

One of the methods that this constitution uses to dampen arrogance are the "emotional development" programs in Teentown that give the teenagers practice in giving and receiving criticism.

A person who tries to alter our opinions or behavior with intimidation, violence, or physical force is a "bully leader". An extreme example is the woman in the photo to the right who grabbed the steering wheel of a city bus and tried to change its course.

Everybody is encouraged to discuss issues, but nobody has the right to be a bully. Therefore, the information trials can pass judgment on whether a person is discussing an issue,  or whether they are trying to intimidate or manipulate people.

If an intellectual trial concludes that the person is a bully, the Courts Ministry can require his document be edited or moved to the Deleted category. If a person shows extremely bad behavior on a routine basis, he can also be evicted, or put on restrictions, such as restricting him to certain neighborhoods and prohibiting him from posting on the government sites.

We could classify managers into two categories:

	1)	The managers who work with their team. They are referred to as "working managers".
	2)	The managers who only supervise their team. They are referred to as "shadow managers".

The shadow managers do not work directly with their team members. Instead, they observe the team and give them orders about what to do. Modern technology, such as radios, telephones, and Internet connections, allow them to be physically isolated from their team, which allows them to supervise the team while they remain at their home or office.

They are referred to as "shadow" managers because they can easily hide from the team, or from the problems that they are supposed to deal with. For example, when a business executive is criticized for producing shoddy products or abusing his employees, he can hide in an office and order an employee to deal with his critics. He is essentially "hiding in the shadows" while his team deals with his problems.

The social animals do not have shadow managers. The leader of a group of wolves, for example, gets involved with the fights with predators and neighbors. He does not hide in the bushes and tell the other wolves to deal with the problem. Our prehistoric ancestors did not have shadow managers, either.

There is nothing wrong with shadow managers. Our government and many organizations are so large and complex that we cannot expect the managers to work with the people at the lower levels.

It is possible for a shadow manager to be very beneficial because he can spend all of his time analyzing management issues rather than working with the team. However, the shadow managers are doing intangible work, usually while sitting at a desk, so it is difficult for us to determine whether a shadow manager is useful or incompetent.

All of the existing governments are excellent examples of this problem. There are thousands of officials in the FDA, FBI, USDA, and other agencies, and most of them sit in chairs all day, which makes it is difficult to determine whether they are doing something of value. This is especially true when we provide government officials with so much secrecy that we cannot figure out what they do.

One lesson to learn from the existing governments is that we cannot give government officials any secrecy. We must be able to determine what they are doing so that we can pass judgment on whether they are contributing something of value.

Large businesses also have this problem. They have a lot of managers who spend almost all of their time sitting in a desk, which makes it difficult to figure out which of them is doing something of value.

As mentioned here, it is possible that the US industries did not bother to modernize their equipment because a lot of their management were shadow managers who did not have an interest in learning how technology was improving.

This Constitution reduces this problem by encouraging the ministers to create smaller businesses. In a free enterprise system, businesses benefit by being as large as possible, but when the government is in control of the economy, it is better to have smaller businesses, and to arrange for most of the businesses to have at least one competitor so that we can compare the businesses to one another.

Two issues to consider in regards to shadow managers are:

1)		Shadow managers are a burden. The shadow managers are a burden on an organization because they don't directly contribute to the team. Although the team benefits from their supervision, the team would be more productive if the managers work with the team. The people who are the most appropriate as shadow managers are those who cannot contribute to the team, or who cannot work full-time, such as people who are suffering from old-age, injuries, or disease. This is another reason why this Constitution encourages part-time jobs.
2)		Shadow managers are less useful. The working managers are more effective than shadow managers, even if they only work with the team occasionally, because they acquire a better understanding of the work that their team does, and the equipment that they use. That knowledge allows them to do a better job of managing the team. For example, they have a better understanding of which tasks are the most physically or mentally difficult or time-consuming, which allows them to make more intelligent decisions about how to allocate the chores among the team members. They also have a better understanding of which machines are squeaking or need maintenance; how to arrange the machines to reduce the amount of time the team members waste traveling from one machine to another; and which machines should be replaced with a more modern version.

Reducing the number of shadow managers will make an organization more efficient, and provide the team with better supervision. And letting the old and injured people become shadow managers allows them to contribute something of value rather than waste their time solving crossword puzzles.

A modern government is so large and complex that most of the officials will be shadow managers, but we can increase the number of officials who have a good understanding of what is going on in the businesses, social clubs, recreational activities, schools, and other organizations, by allowing people to become part-time and temporary government officials.

This allows people who have jobs in the businesses and other organizations to provide the government with officials who have knowledge of what is going on in the city. They will not have to depend upon consultants to provide them with information. This is another reason why this Constitution encourages people to become part-time and temporary government officials.

As we increase the number of government officials, and as we increase the number of officials that the voters are responsible for electing, we increase the chances of corruption and incompetence. Three reasons for this are:

1)		As we increase the number of government officials, we must decrease the standards that they meet in order to find enough people to fill the jobs. For an extreme example, if we need only one government official, we can insist on having the most intelligent, honest and talented person, but if the government is so large that half of the population has to become government officials, then a lot of the government officials will be ordinary people.
2)		As we increase the number of government officials that each voter has to elect, we increase the burden on the voters to analyze candidates and pass judgment on the job performance of the officials that they elected.
3)		As we increase the number of officials, we must decrease the authority that each of them has, which increases the amount of time the officials have to waste trying to figure out what the other officials are doing, and finding ways to cooperate and compromise with the other officials. They will need more time to make decisions, which makes the government more sluggish and inefficient.

The U.S. Constitution is based on the theory that we can reduce corruption and incompetence by having a large government of elected officials, and not giving any of the much authority. As a result of that attitude, when the American people become upset with their corrupt and incompetent city officials, they often respond by dividing the city into two cities.

For example, the city that I live in, Goleta, was originally a section of Santa Barbara, but in 2002 the voters made Goleta into a separate city, so today we have a Santa Barbara city government and a Goleta city government. We now have more government officials and more elected officials, but nothing has improved.

Splitting a city with an incompetent or corrupt government into two cities, and then expecting the city governments to become more efficient and less corrupt is as idiotic as splitting a crime network into two networks, and expecting them to become honest organizations. It is also as idiotic as splitting a bucket of sewage into two buckets, and expecting both buckets to have clean water.

It is more sensible to have as few leaders as possible so that we have fewer leaders to observe and pass judgment on. We must also prohibit secrecy so that we can determine what the officials are doing.

As mentioned here, there are arguments in the USA about whether the nation is a democracy, a republic, a constitutional republic, or something else. There are also endless arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment, freedom, sexism, equality, and free speech.

The people who argue over those issues are arguing over the meaning of words. For example, what is a "democracy"? There is no authority for language yet, so that word has a slightly different meaning to different people. If we want it to refer to an organization in which the majority of people determine its future, then every nation is some type of democracy. This is even true of North Korea.

North Korea is a democracy because the majority of people determine its future. It appears to be a dictatorship only because the North Korean people are allowing a small group of men to fight with each other for leadership, and they become submissive to whoever wins the fight, just like a group of apes.

The North Korean people are not controlled by a small group of government officials. Rather, they are voluntarily choosing to be submissive to that small group, just like animals become submissive to their leader, and just like a group of sheep become submissive to a sheepdog, and just like the medieval peasants were submissive to kings and queens.

If we were to divide England into two nations, namely, one of which had the people who support their monarchy, and the other which had people who opposed it, then the monarchy would exist only in one of those two nations.

The English monarchy does not have any control over the English people. Rather, the English people are choosing to support and admire it.

Likewise, a tiny group of North Korean government officials cannot control millions of North Korean people. Rather, the North Korean people are allowing a small group of people to control their nation.

The North Korean government understands this concept. They realize that they are in a very precarious position, and that the people can rebel against them at any moment. This is why they censor information, arrest their critics, and prevent the North Korean people from learning about other cultures. If they were truly capable of controlling millions of people, they would not care if the North Korean people had free access to the Internet, and they would not try to restrict or control tourists to North Korea.

The only people who can truly claim to be under somebody's control are the prisoners in jails. Prison officials have total control of the prisoners, and that is why prison employees do not have to censor information, murder any of the prisoners that criticize them, or stop prisoners from learning about what is going on in the world. The prison officials have nothing to fear because the prisoners are truly under their control.

If the North Korean government truly had control of their citizens, then they would behave like prison officials. Specifically, they would not care what the North Korean people knew or did, and they would not have to murder or censor any of them.

This concept also applies to the Jews. They believe that they are the superior race, but if that were true, then they would not need to use murder, censorship, blackmail, false flag operations, lies, deception, and intimidation to succeed at their goals. They would be able to impress us with their talent. They would dominate the world because of their superior abilities. Furthermore, they would not fear criticism or alternative opinions because they would be able to provide intelligent responses to all of it.

Aside from prisons, every organization, regardless of whether it is a business, sports group, orchestra, or nation, is a democracy. It does not matter whether they describe themselves as Marxist, constitutional Republic, a corporation, dictatorship, or a sports club.

Many organizations do not appear to be democracies simply because humans are apes, and we have a strong desire to follow one another and trust our authorities. This creates the impression that the authorities are in control of the people, when in reality, the people are voluntarily following the authorities.

It is the people that make an organization what it is, not their government system, laws, land, or weather. An organization is a reflection of the mental and physical characteristics of its members. It is a reflection of their ability and desire to learn, think, and work in teams, and their emotional characteristics, such as their fear of the unknown, their craving for status, their desire to follow one another, their arrogance, and their mental illnesses.

An organization is also a reflection of how the members treat one another, their ability to select leaders and role models, and their desire and ability to understand and follow laws.

All of the governments in the world today are corrupt and incompetent because these are the best governments that the majority of people can create. As the percentage of stupid, uneducated, neurotic, and crude people increase in a nation, their government will become increasingly incompetent and corrupt. The only way to improve the government is to raise the standards of the people.

The most sensible reaction to corrupt and incompetent government officials is to replace them, and to try to understand why the voters selected them, and then use that knowledge to experiment with methods of improving the performance of voters.

However, no culture considers the voters to be responsible for their government. Every culture has evolved to fit the desires of the majority of people, and we do not want to be held responsible for our mistakes. Therefore, every culture allows the voters to blame their corrupt government on somebody other than themselves, such as other citizens, wealthy people, Russian influence, or mysterious concepts, such as "power corrupts" and "special interests".

The existing cultures are so absurd that they allow voters to blame their corrupt government on the people who do not vote, and they pressure those non-voting people into voting, which is as idiotic as a person blaming his failed marriage on the people who did not help him select a spouse.

This constitution regards a voter as a leader because he is choosing the people who determine our future. A voter is more important to us than the people who determine who qualifies as a doctor or pilot because our government officials have more of an influence over our lives than doctors and pilots. Therefore, this Constitution holds voters to the same high standards as people in other top leadership positions, and voters are held accountable for their decisions.

We would not allow the majority of people to choose who becomes a doctor or pilot, and it is even more idiotic to let the majority of people choose our government officials.

There are millions of citizens, businesses, Zionist organizations, charities, religious groups, and other organizations competing for control of our holiday celebrations, language, historical knowledge, weddings, foods, clothing, birthday parties, clothing styles, and other culture. Nobody has to show evidence that they can provide beneficial leadership.

For example, the businesses that produce candy bars, clothing, and toys have the freedom to take a leadership role for children and manipulate them into desiring their particular products. They don't have to provide any evidence that they are improving the lives of the children.

The Courts Ministry has the responsibility and authority to hold every person accountable for their effect on other people. Everybody who tries to change our culture is appointing himself to a leadership position, and he is held accountable for his effect.

If Courts Ministry concludes that a person is providing beneficial leadership, then he will get credit for it, which makes it easier for him to get leadership positions. However, if the Courts Ministry concludes that his leadership is worthless or detrimental, he will have a failure listed in his database entry, which will make it increasingly difficult for him to get an influential job.

Modern humans must help each other resist the desire to become submissive to people who have been selected to be our leaders, and who take the role of a leader. We must push ourselves into replacing incompetent leaders, and arresting criminal leaders.

No culture yet encourages critical analyses of their leaders, or the replacement of leaders who fail to deal with problems adequately. For example, when a business is going bankrupt, there is no culture that investigates the situation to determine whether the bankruptcy is due to changes in society, or because the executives are incompetent or corrupt. Instead, the executives sometimes get bonuses.

There is even less concern about replacing incompetent government officials, such as the Santa Barbara officials who get away with ignoring the issue of noise at the airport. A few more examples are here.

In the existing cultures, when the leader of a business is considered guilty of committing a crime, the business is made to pay a fine, or the executives are scolded. Occasionally an executive is punished by putting him in jail for a few months, but he is permitted to become an executive again because every culture believes that punishments can transform criminals into honest people.

This Constitution does not permit punishing anybody, especially not intangible entities, such as businesses. The criminal executives must be treated just like other criminals; namely, either put on restrictions, euthanized, or evicted.

The people in leadership positions must meet higher standards than the ordinary person because it is more detrimental to allow our leaders to commit crimes than an "ordinary" person. Therefore, the Courts Ministry is required to be more intolerant of dishonest leaders.

This is the opposite attitude of every existing culture. Animals fight for leadership, so they are not bothered by leaders who are violent, and female animals are attracted to the males that win the fights.

Humans also intimidate, yell at, slap, and insult one another in order to resolve differences of opinion and to dominate one another. During the presidential debates, for example, the candidates spend most of their time insulting one another and boasting about themselves, not discussing issues. They behave like monkeys that are fighting for dominance, but the voters do not consider that behavior to be inappropriate.

Stacie Lawton was elected after being released from jail. He was recently arrested again.

Most people are so emotionally similar to animals that they don't care if their leaders have been caught committing crimes, or whether they were blackmailed by Jeffrey Epstein, or whether they have brain damage, such as Senators Mitch McConnell and Dianne Feinstein.

This constitution reverses those attitudes. People in leadership positions must meet higher standards than the public.

Almost everybody routinely criticizes government officials, which can create the impression that humans are willing to be critical of their leaders and replace the incompetent leaders, but that is an illusion. For example, the American voters who support Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can criticize Donald Trump, and even support an assassination of him, but they cannot look critically at Biden and Harris. Likewise, the voters who support Donald Trump can criticize Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, but they cannot look critically at Donald Trump.

We have a willingness to criticize and kill the people we disagree with, but we are submissive to the people we regard as authorities. It is unnatural for us to be critical of and replace our leaders. Therefore, in order for us to improve our leadership, we must be able to suppress our craving to become submissive to our leaders, and push ourselves into treating them as ordinary employees.

Furthermore, we must regard voters as leaders, and be critical of them, also, and replace the voters who cannot provide us with excellent analyses of government officials and their policies.

In a free enterprise system, a person becomes influential by becoming wealthy, and in a democracy, people become influential by attracting voters, but this constitution puts people into competition to find improvements to society.

Citizens and government officials get credit for finding ways to improve our lives, such as identifying incompetent or dishonest officials; clarifying confusing remarks in a video documentary; and finding improvements to social affairs, holiday celebrations, and recreational activities.

Conversely, a person who does things that are destructive, or who posts documents that are stupid, will hurt his reputation, which will reduce his chances of getting into an influential position. The people who don't do anything beneficial or destructive will be regarded as ordinary people, and they cannot be promoted to influential positions.

People who find improvements to society will get credit for it, and that will improve their chances of becoming government officials. This will give us government officials who have demonstrated the desire and ability to find improvements to society. It will give us leaders who have had success in improving society, rather than people who are wealthy or popular, or who have cheated to get into a leadership position.